5 ms·

We basically have common ancestors with all animals, but: * We are way closer to a bird than to an amoeba, so our shared ancestors with birds are closer in tim

We basically have common ancestors with all animals, but: * We are way closer to a bird than to an amoeba, so our shared ancestors with birds are closer in time than our shared ancestors with amoebas. * We are way closer to a cat than to a bird, so our shared ancestors with cats are closer in time than our shared ancestors with birds. * We are way closer to an ape than to a cat, so our shared ancestors with apes are closer in time than our shared ancestors with cats.

otabdeveloper4 7y ago
'Closeness' (whatever you mean by that) doesn't really imply ancestry without some hefty presuppositions.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > 'Closeness' (whatever you mean by that) doesn't really imply ancestry without some hefty presuppositions Of course it does. It doesn't prove ancestry. But genetic similarity implies proximate shared ancestry. We can take microbes (or fruit flies), subject them to stress, let the survivors reproduce, and watch the genotypes branch into a diverse population. We can then take the observed path of genetic variation and compare it to the relative closeness of the population at the end of the experiment. That's one way we validate the statistical techniques used to relate genetic similarity to probable ancestry.
  - otabdeveloper4 7y ago
    You're making a whole lot of unfounded and unproven assumptions here! For example: what if the current genetic diversity on Earth is the result of genetic engineering by ancient aliums? That's a facile example, but there are serious deeper issues here. The mechanisms of gene transfer are too complex for us to explain presently, including things like viruses, horizontal transfer, etc. You're assuming a simplistic darwinist model that we already know isn't true.
    - craigsmansion 7y ago
      > what if the current genetic diversity on Earth is the result of genetic engineering by ancient aliums? What if? Obviously they must have engineered it such that current evolution theories have the best predictive value for their achievement. A clever bunch, no doubt, but unfortunately outside of the realm of science because it can't be falsified.
      - otabdeveloper4 7y ago
        But that's the point: current evolution theories have no predictive value and are based on circular logic. We assume species have a common ancestor because they have similar DNA, and similar DNA is supposed to be proof of a common ancestry.
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > what if the current genetic diversity on Earth is the result of genetic engineering by ancient aliums? [sic] For purposes of explaining the last 4 million years of human evolution, it’s irrelevant whether conscious or unguided phenomena created forms even as recent as mammals. > You're assuming a simplistic darwinist model that we already know isn't true No, nobody is. Retroviral horizontal transfer is fascinating, but it’s one of many mutation vectors. At the scale of speciation, the specific way a mutation arises can be largely ignored. (Creationism aside.)
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > You're making a whole lot of unfounded and unproven assumptions here! The grandparent post makes no unfounded assumptions. It makes unproven ones for a strict definition of “proven”, but that's trivially true since no statements about physical reality can actually be proven, only statements about the relation of abstract concepts can be proven, and then only within a given system of axioms. > For example: what if the current genetic diversity on Earth is the result of genetic engineering by ancient aliums? That is indeed an example of an assumption that is not merely unproven but actually unfounded, but it's not an example of one made in the grandparent post so I don't know how it is relevant. > The mechanisms of gene transfer are too complex for us to explain presently, including things like viruses, horizontal transfer, etc. There are aspects that lack complete explanation, but that doesn't diminish the power of what we do understand (also, viruses and horizontal gene transfer aren't two things we can't explain, viruses are one of the main mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer.) > You're assuming a simplistic darwinist model that we already know isn't true. I see no evidence that that is the case; modern models are not simplistic Darwinism models of the type that involve only transfer by descent.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > It doesn't prove ancestry. ...And science isn't really about proof, it's about predictive models that are falsifiable but which have resisted falsification. While it hopes to reach or approximate truth, ultimately it's about pragmatic utility.
siempreb 7y ago
so? That still doesn't make an ape my ancestor. Or are you saying that every specie I see is ending up being a human? Or is it only when a specie has been 'a good boy'? I am a software developer, dealing with logic all day. This idea is flawed all over. Because we don't know how and why Earth and the ecosystem were created doesn't mean we have to come up with some theory because we need one. Especially not build upon a theory that originated in a time when people believed there was an end to the earth where you could fall off. Simply say to the kids at school that this is something we still don't know. Nothing to be ashamed of.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > are you saying that every specie I see is ending up being a human? No scientist argues this. Nor does any scientist argue that humans evolved from modern apes. If you're arguing in good faith, an introductory text on microbial evolution is where you'll find approachable answers. They're on human time scales and adequately describes the multi-path mechanism by which mutation and natural selection lead to speciation and evolution.
- tspiteri 7y ago
  Are you implying that if we don't know all the details of something, then we just don't know it? That is, are you implying that if we don't know all the details about our evolution, then we should just say that we know nothing and ignore all the things we actually do know are very very likely? That would leave you without any empirical sciences, because there has always something we do not know. When Newtonian mechanics where the best we had, they were incomplete, but they are still extremely useful even now that we know they are incomplete. All empirical sciences are essentially some theory that fits the empirical evidenc, but never completely and perfectly. In my post I'm assuming acceptance of what is commonly accepted in the theory of evolution. If you don't accept that, there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion.
  - siempreb 7y ago
    > if we don't know all the details about our evolution, then we should just say that we know nothing and ignore all the things we actually do know are very very likely? Nothing wrong with studying and figuring out how things work, you should not look at it with an all or nothing attitude. But assuming from the very start that all human species ancestors are some kind of ape is just so ridiculous that it can only sink in when you are properly conditioned(at school) or properly brainwashed. And teaching it to the kids on school is almost criminal IMHO. You want proof, me too, but we don't have it yet. But I promise you it will not be apes, just as we don't fall of the end of the earth. > In my post I'm assuming acceptance of what is commonly accepted in the theory of evolution. If you don't accept that, there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion. Many things that are commonly accepted are wrong, not? I do have a point and there is a general discussion about this you cannot stop fortunately.

otabdeveloper4 7y ago

'Closeness' (whatever you mean by that) doesn't really imply ancestry without some hefty presuppositions.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> 'Closeness' (whatever you mean by that) doesn't really imply ancestry without some hefty presuppositions Of course it does. It doesn't prove ancestry. But genetic similarity implies proximate shared ancestry. We can take microbes (or fruit flies), subject them to stress, let the survivors reproduce, and watch the genotypes branch into a diverse population. We can then take the observed path of genetic variation and compare it to the relative closeness of the population at the end of the experiment. That's one way we validate the statistical techniques used to relate genetic similarity to probable ancestry.
- otabdeveloper4 7y ago
  You're making a whole lot of unfounded and unproven assumptions here! For example: what if the current genetic diversity on Earth is the result of genetic engineering by ancient aliums? That's a facile example, but there are serious deeper issues here. The mechanisms of gene transfer are too complex for us to explain presently, including things like viruses, horizontal transfer, etc. You're assuming a simplistic darwinist model that we already know isn't true.
  - craigsmansion 7y ago
    > what if the current genetic diversity on Earth is the result of genetic engineering by ancient aliums? What if? Obviously they must have engineered it such that current evolution theories have the best predictive value for their achievement. A clever bunch, no doubt, but unfortunately outside of the realm of science because it can't be falsified.
    - otabdeveloper4 7y ago
      But that's the point: current evolution theories have no predictive value and are based on circular logic. We assume species have a common ancestor because they have similar DNA, and similar DNA is supposed to be proof of a common ancestry.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > what if the current genetic diversity on Earth is the result of genetic engineering by ancient aliums? [sic] For purposes of explaining the last 4 million years of human evolution, it’s irrelevant whether conscious or unguided phenomena created forms even as recent as mammals. > You're assuming a simplistic darwinist model that we already know isn't true No, nobody is. Retroviral horizontal transfer is fascinating, but it’s one of many mutation vectors. At the scale of speciation, the specific way a mutation arises can be largely ignored. (Creationism aside.)
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > You're making a whole lot of unfounded and unproven assumptions here! The grandparent post makes no unfounded assumptions. It makes unproven ones for a strict definition of “proven”, but that's trivially true since no statements about physical reality can actually be proven, only statements about the relation of abstract concepts can be proven, and then only within a given system of axioms. > For example: what if the current genetic diversity on Earth is the result of genetic engineering by ancient aliums? That is indeed an example of an assumption that is not merely unproven but actually unfounded, but it's not an example of one made in the grandparent post so I don't know how it is relevant. > The mechanisms of gene transfer are too complex for us to explain presently, including things like viruses, horizontal transfer, etc. There are aspects that lack complete explanation, but that doesn't diminish the power of what we do understand (also, viruses and horizontal gene transfer aren't two things we can't explain, viruses are one of the main mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer.) > You're assuming a simplistic darwinist model that we already know isn't true. I see no evidence that that is the case; modern models are not simplistic Darwinism models of the type that involve only transfer by descent.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > It doesn't prove ancestry. ...And science isn't really about proof, it's about predictive models that are falsifiable but which have resisted falsification. While it hopes to reach or approximate truth, ultimately it's about pragmatic utility.

siempreb 7y ago

so? That still doesn't make an ape my ancestor. Or are you saying that every specie I see is ending up being a human? Or is it only when a specie has been 'a good boy'? I am a software developer, dealing with logic all day. This idea is flawed all over. Because we don't know how and why Earth and the ecosystem were created doesn't mean we have to come up with some theory because we need one. Especially not build upon a theory that originated in a time when people believed there was an end to the earth where you could fall off. Simply say to the kids at school that this is something we still don't know. Nothing to be ashamed of.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> are you saying that every specie I see is ending up being a human? No scientist argues this. Nor does any scientist argue that humans evolved from modern apes. If you're arguing in good faith, an introductory text on microbial evolution is where you'll find approachable answers. They're on human time scales and adequately describes the multi-path mechanism by which mutation and natural selection lead to speciation and evolution.
tspiteri 7y ago
Are you implying that if we don't know all the details of something, then we just don't know it? That is, are you implying that if we don't know all the details about our evolution, then we should just say that we know nothing and ignore all the things we actually do know are very very likely? That would leave you without any empirical sciences, because there has always something we do not know. When Newtonian mechanics where the best we had, they were incomplete, but they are still extremely useful even now that we know they are incomplete. All empirical sciences are essentially some theory that fits the empirical evidenc, but never completely and perfectly. In my post I'm assuming acceptance of what is commonly accepted in the theory of evolution. If you don't accept that, there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion.
- siempreb 7y ago
  > if we don't know all the details about our evolution, then we should just say that we know nothing and ignore all the things we actually do know are very very likely? Nothing wrong with studying and figuring out how things work, you should not look at it with an all or nothing attitude. But assuming from the very start that all human species ancestors are some kind of ape is just so ridiculous that it can only sink in when you are properly conditioned(at school) or properly brainwashed. And teaching it to the kids on school is almost criminal IMHO. You want proof, me too, but we don't have it yet. But I promise you it will not be apes, just as we don't fall of the end of the earth. > In my post I'm assuming acceptance of what is commonly accepted in the theory of evolution. If you don't accept that, there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion. Many things that are commonly accepted are wrong, not? I do have a point and there is a general discussion about this you cannot stop fortunately.